The property is a two-storey
semi-detached house, with an original single storey rear projection (outhouse with depth 1.9m) across part of
the width of its rear elevation. The width of this outhouse has previously been reduced, and on the remainder of
the rear elevation a single storey rear extension with depth 3.5m has previously been constructed. The
application was for a proposed single storey extension directly to the rear of this outhouse, to the same depth
as the existing single storey rear extension (i.e. depth 1.6m from the rear of the outhouse, which is equivalent
to depth 3.5m from the line of the remainder of the rear elevation). The application was also for a proposed
rear dormer, and a proposed outbuilding.

The first key issue was
whether the rear wall of the outhouse should be classed as part of “the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”
for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e), which states that “development is not permitted by Class A if … the
enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more
than … 3 metres”.

The Inspector stated the
following (note the Inspector refers to the outhouse as an “offshoot”):

“… it is argued [by the
appellant] that there are in effect 2 original rear walls, and that the 3m “permitted development zone” is
measured from each one, so that the proposed extension would be within the zone in front of the
outshoot.

…

It is clear to me that the
original house’s rear wall was staggered, with the offshoot’s rear extending further out than the house’s main
rear wall. I find no suggestion that section A.1(e)(i) is intended to refer only the rear wall which is set
furthest back, regardless of which rear wall is being extended.

Indeed it seems to me
that where walls comprising a rear elevation are staggered, the “permitted development zone” is staggered to
match.

…

I conclude on this matter
that, as the proposed extension would protrude less than 3m from that part of the house’s original rear wall
which would be extended, then it would accord with the provisions of section A.1(e)(i).”

The second key issue was
whether it makes any difference that the rear wall of the outhouse has been previously altered for the purposes
of Class A, part A.1(e), which states that “development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of
the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than … 3
metres”.

The Inspector stated the
following:

“The Council argues that a
door has replaced an original window in the offshoot’s rear wall, and a monopitch has replaced the original flat
roof. However this does not indicate to me that the original wall no longer exists; it seems rather to have been
altered. In any event, it seems to me that, even if the Council is correct, this does not
prevent the original line from being used to assess whether the extension would be permitted development.
I see no implication that “original” means “unaltered”.”

The third key issue was
whether the proposed outbuilding would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(d), which states that “Development is
not permitted by Class E if … the height of the building, enclosure or container would exceed … (ii) 2.5 metres
in the case of a building, enclosure or container within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the
dwellinghouse”.

The Inspector stated the
following:

“This part of the
application concerns an outbuilding, 2.5m high, and adjoining the site’s side and rear boundaries. 5 roof
lanterns would extend 300mm above a flat roof; figured dimensions show them 2m from the site boundary but the
Council said that the distance scales at less. As I describe below, this distance is not relevant to my
consideration, but I note that the plan is endorsed “do not scale”. In any event, figured dimensions have
precedence over those produced from scaling if there is any discrepancy.

Class E of Part 1 of
Schedule 2 of the GPDO permits the provision of domestic outbuildings, with some exceptions. Those relevant to
this appeal are paragraphs E.1(d)(ii) and (iii) where “the height of the building would exceed (ii) 2.5m in the
case of a building … within 2m of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, or (iii) 3 metres in any
other case”.

It is clear to me that
this wording means that a building is not permitted development if it comes within 2m of a boundary, and if
any part of it is higher than 2.5m. I find no support for the contention that the
provision

only relates to those
parts of the building within the 2m distance.

The current appeal
building would clearly be within 2m of the boundary, and part of it would be higher than 2.5m. Therefore under
the terms of paragraph E.1(d)(ii) it would not benefit from permitted development rights.”

Main
Conclusions:

·Where a property has a
(part-width) original rear projection, then there will be more than one wall that constitutes “the
rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part A.1(e). This means that where the
original rear elevation of a property is stepped, the 3m/4m rear projection limit will be similarly
stepped.[Note:
This would appear to contradict at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in
the “Reference Section” on “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”].[Relevant to: “The rear wall of the original
dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].

·Where a property has an original
rear projection, then even if this is only single storey, the rear wall of this projection is
still a “rear wall of the original dwellinghouse” for the purposes of Class A, part
A.1(e).[Relevant to: “The rear
wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].

·Where the rear wall of the
original dwellinghouse has been previously altered, its original line should be used for the purposes
of Class A, part A.1(e).[Relevant
to: “The rear wall of the original dwellinghouse”, A.1(e), A.1(f), A.2(c)].

·Where parts of a proposed
outbuilding are within 2m of a boundary, the 2.5m height limit applies not just to those parts within
2m of the boundary, but to all parts of the proposed outbuilding.[Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on
“E.1(d)”][Relevant to: A.1(g), E.1(d)].

·Where there is a discrepancy on
a drawing between annotated dimensions and those produced from scaling, the annotated dimensions have
precedence.[Relevant to:
”General”].

Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):